2. Later Reflection
How did manipulative illustrate growth?
There was always this need and desire to use manipulatives in my classroom but I did not know how they must be used to be useful or what is the theory behind why they work! I realized that if I am more knowledgeable, informed, practiced in using manipulatives, I will be more effective in making chemistry easy to learn.
The baseline reflection reflects my need for citations of educational literature about manipulatives in chemistry classrooms, my need to investigate researches addressing the benefits of using manipulatives, and my need to come up with authoritive evidences that supports the effectiveness of using them.
Writing an annotated bibliography about manipulatives served me more than I expected. I built up several evidences to show my growth as an educator. Out of the twenty-three articles chosen from the Penn Library, fifteen entries were constructed for this annotated bibliography. You can have access to all articles used for this annotated bibliography through my Chem. Ed 636 webpage. I came to learn that this tool is not new to teaching. Since the eighteenth century, Educational reformers have pointed out the importance of manipulative implementation and concluded theories we use till this day. Pedagogues and educational reformers emphasize on the importance of including the five senses in the learning process to proceed from the easy to the more difficult, pass from the observation to the consciousness and then to speech then come measuring, drawing, and writing. Through reading those articles I became familiar with the educational theories relevant to science education about manipulatives. My growth in this area is demonstrated through applying my learning from entries that construct this annotated bibliography. The annotated bibliography I constructed is made of four sections; you have access to all citations used for all the entries by clicking here.
Sections addressed are:
1. What are manipulatives?
2. How to transfer from concrete level to abstract level
3. Using manipulatives with learning handicap
4. Current researches
I have included three entries from my annotated bibliography below. These entries contain the theories and literature that most influenced my growth. First entry shows how concepts are introduced and developed through objects that can be touched. Second entry where Cohen, H.G. figured out the effectiveness of the two teaching strategies; verbal (abstract) and manipulatives (concrete) on students with different cognitive levels which is what I needed because this exists in any classroom. In the third entry Bright, G.W. points out that there are two perspectives to use manipulative in classrooms, while at times it can be very rewarding and successful, others they might bring harm.
In each entry, the blue font represents the summary of my current view of what the theory is behind why manipulatives work or is useful or how they must be used in order to be useful. I also discussed implementations that stem from each theory.
1. Silverman, H.J., Bruni, J.Z. (1986). Developing Concepts in Probability and Statistics- And Much More. Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), 34-37.
James V. Bruni and Helene J Silverman are the professors at Herbert H. Lehman College of the city university of New York conduct workshops and courses for teachers. In this article they suggest a few wonderful and highly motivational activities through which the students would be involved in active learning experiences that involve the use of manipulative materials, putting in mind the weak connection between using these manipulative materials and learning the concepts for which the manipulatives were designed. To develop a concept, the authors suggest a four step teaching process for using manipulatives. 1. Introduce the model 2. Establish a record system; guidelines structured for the teachers to use to get the most out of the power of manipulatives 3. Reflection on the experience; discussion enables the transfer of experiments to tables charts and graphs. 4. Generating new experiences; extending the concept through exploration and raising new questions. In general, the purpose of this article is to provide a structured methodology to ease teachers’ experience with manipulatives.
The rationale of the theory that has most influenced me from this article is how to use manipulatives to develop a concept and successfully transfer information to the student. Educational context from this article suggests; 1. Introducing the model. 2. Establishing guidelines structured to get the most out of the power of manipulative. 3. Discuss and reflect to enable the transfer of information. 4. Extending the concept through raising new questions.
For example, for some of my tenth grade physical science students it was difficult to understand and memorize the equation used to count neutrons. Here my manipulatives came into play. I used the dyed beans (red = protons, blue = neutrons) in a one half inch clear sphere representing the nucleus to make it clear for students how to use the equation to calculate the number of neutrons. First, I introduced the model to the class. From there I established guidelines that answered questions like what are the dyed beans representing, which one does each representing, etc. The atomic mass is the weight of the nucleus including the weight of both proton and neutrons. To find the number of the neutrons (blue beans) given the atomic mass, we simply subtract the protons (red beans) from the atomic mass. We repeated that for three hydrogen isotopes and two helium isotopes. By the end of the class it was common sense to subtract the number of protons when given the atomic mass. Finally, explaining this concept opened a new door for other questions such as; which of those isotopes's atomic mass was used on the periodic table? This question, however, lead us to an advanced level in finding the average atomic mass of the element. The clear plastic nuclei I constructed helped my students be involved in an active learning experiment and eased my way to transfer a concept. It was through the understanding of the four steps mentioned above that I was successful in transferring the information.
2. Cohen, H.G. (1992). Two Teaching Strategies: Their effectiveness with Students of Varying Cognitive Abilities. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 126-132.
The author introduces this research by saying that over the past ten years; little progress has been made in the field of scientific literacy. He defines scientific literacy as “Knowledge of concepts and content, the ability to use process skills and a high level of reasoning ability.” Cohen bases his research on previous work done to show that the majority of U.S. adults have a better capacity for learning at a concrete operational level (Chiappetta 1976). Thus Cohen attempts to figure out the effectiveness of two different teaching strategies; Verbal (abstract) and manipulative (concrete), on students with varying cognitive abilities. The results from Cohen’s research support Chiapetta’s research in that Cohen found out that students in possession of a large amount of cognitive structure tend to perform better and students with a smaller amount of cognitive structure need more concrete (manipulative) methods of teaching. Since cognitive abilities vary so greatly, teachers must be mindful of this diversity in their classrooms and work to provide the majority of students with ample activates and manipulatives in addition to the verbal means.
The rationale behind this article pinpointed the effectiveness of two different strategies; abstract (the verbal) and concrete (the manipulatives) on students with varying cognitive abilities. As I mentioned in my example above only some of my students had difficulties in understanding how to calculate the number of neutrons. This portion of the class needed ample activities and manipulatives in addition to the verbal means. The literature above reveals that students in possession of a large amount of cognitive structure tend to perform better and students with a smaller amount of cognitive structure need more concrete (manipulative) methods of teaching. Here I need to keep in mind the diversity in my own classroom and work to provide the majority of students the opportunity to learn at a concrete operational level.
3. Bright, G.W., (1986). One point of view. Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), 4.
Bright points out that there are two different perspectives (view points) to the use of manipulatives in classrooms, while at times it can be very successful and rewarding, others they might bring harm. He adds that the carelessness of the students comes about when two different worlds (that of mathematical symbols and that of manipulative materials) are confused. Symbols and the manipulative must always reflect the same concept, while the students might not automatically grasp this connection. The author believes that oral language provides a bridge between these symbols and manipulative. Another way that the author suggests to bridge between these manipulatives and symbols is the experience of touching and moving objects by the students. One important thing to note is that students might fall into a trap by failing to recognize this connection regardless. In this situation, we as teachers must commit to realizing this and finding ways to incorporate manipulatives into everyday instruction, but keep in mind that manipulatives are not appropriate for every concept.
I chose this entry to comment on the learning I experienced from this educational scientific literature that emphasizes on why symbols and the manipulatives should always reflect the same concept because students may not automatically grasp the connection. It is my responsibility as a teacher to either verbally provide the bridge between symbols and manipulatives or provide the opportunity to the students to touch and move the objects to recognize and understand the connection. If still students fail to realize this connection then manipulatives should be incorporated into everyday instructions to ensure students grasp the connection leading to conceptual understanding, keeping in mind that manipulatives are not for every concept.
In conclusion, through reading many articles I became familiar with educational theories relevant to science education about manipulatives. The Scientific literature concerning manipulatives gave me a wealth of new pedagogies to implement including but not limited to:
*Emphasis on why/how manipulatives help connect concepts to the students' observable world and possibly give them the habit of noticing things to ask questions about. And that the intellectual development would be marked by gradual transformation of overt action into mental operation.
*Realizing that the cognitive abilities vary in a classroom, I must be mindful of this diversity and work to provide the majority of students with ample activities and manipulatives in addition to the verbal means because according to researches; students with small amount of cognitive structure need more concrete (manipulative) methods of teaching.
*Several studies show game playing increases students' comprehension of subject matter because it engages them in the topic. The more engaged the students are, the more they learn. Using manipulatives in game playing increases the students’ learning and they are effective because students enjoy them. As students struggle to learn and apply the definitions of terms such as molecule, compound, mixture and pure substance, I found that manipulatives effectively helped students to build accurate conceptual pictures of what constitutes the molecule, compound, mixture, and pure substance.
Finally, this research has given me the concrete foundation from which I can know how to use manipulatives properly to best meet the needs of my students, how they must be used in order for them to be useful, and equipped me with enough knowledge to build my own.